Beyond Just "Hard" and "Soft" Support
I wanted to try and clear up some confusion I have seen in the comments about the impact of "hard" and "soft" supporters in the Democratic nomination campaign. Some commenters have noted, correctly, that virtually every single poll shows a smaller percentage of Clinton supporters indicating that they might change their minds than supporters of other candidates (apart from an old Pew poll, I can't find many links on this right now, but I'm sure georgep and Robliberal can help out in the comments). This does in fact mean that Clinton has a higher percentage of "hard" supporters than any other candidates. When one considers the lengthy, fifteen-year relationship Hillary Clinton has had with the Democratic rank and file this makes perfect sense. Candidates such as Edwards, Obama and Richardson have had national profiles for much shorter time spans, and a longer term relationship will necessarily create support with greater depth than will a shorter relationship.
At the same time, it is also true that Clinton is the candidate who benefits most when polls push basically undecided leaners to make a decision. I first pointed this out nearly three months ago, and the recent YouGov poll that was released on MyDD demonstrated that thesis quite nicely. This means that she has the highest percentage of "soft" supporters of any other candidate. This is further emphasized when one considers that Obama performs better, relative to Clinton, among voters whoa are more engaged in the campaign than he does, relative to Clinton, among voters who are less engaged (source).
So, what does this all mean? How can Hillary Clinton have both the highest percentage of "hard" supporters who are unlikely to change their minds, and "soft" supporters who are basically undecided? It may seem like a contradiction, but I assure you that it is not. The key is to understand that there is more than a simple binary of "hard / soft" support, and instead a continuum of "hard" and "soft" support. Right now, voters fit into many different points along the continuum. It seems simply that Clinton's supporters tend to cluster near both extremes of that continuum--thus giving her both the hardest and softest supporters--and that supporters of other candidates tend to cluster more toward the center. In other words, Clinton seems to have a relatively lower percentage of supporters who, while decidedly leaning in her direction, are still keeping an open mind about the campaign. By way of contrast, that may be the most common profile of Edwards and Clinton supporters.
Again, this actually makes sense, and might actually indicate something of an "incumbent rule" factor within Clinton's support. After fifteen years, most Democrats have probably already decided whether or not Hillary Clinton would be their first choice for the Democratic nomination. Thus, she would have a lot of supporters who right now are not seriously considering other, newer candidates. At the same time, most of her super soft supporters that only choose her when pushed are probably convinced that Clinton is not their first choice, but they simply haven't seen a better option yet. This is either because they are not engaged in the campaign, or because they simply have yet to see a better option emerge from the field. It is important to note that these "super soft" Clinton supporters could actually stay with her when it comes time to vote or caucus, if it becomes clear to them that no better option will emerge. After all, the incumbent rule is weakening of late.
So, what does this all mean for the future of the campaign? On the one hand, it means that Clinton's numbers have the most immediate potential to drop, but on the other hand it also means that her bottom level of support is much higher than it is for other candidates. In fact, relating to the latter, it is quite possible that Clinton's absolute basement of support is very close to, or even slightly above, 15% of the Democratic primary / caucus electorate. This could potentially allow her to receive delegates virtually everywhere no matter what happens in the early states. Combine this advantage with what I imagine will be significant super delegate support, and she is already pretty much guaranteed to have quite a few delegates after February 5th.
As far as other candidates go, the key clearly is to stake out multiple, positive distinctions from Clinton, and then to perform well in the early states. This won't be easy, given Clinton's shrewd and currently effective blurring strategy. To get incredibly geeky for a moment, I think a useful analogy would come from Dune. In order to win the nomination, a non-Clinton candidate needs to be something of a Democratic Kwisatz Haderach who can tap into something so deep inside the collective Democratic unconscious that he can trasmute our rank and file's version of the water of life in a way that a Bene Gesserit like Clinton simply cannot.
If you in anyway care to understand what that last sentence means, click here. If you have an even better / geekier analogy, I'd love to hear one in the comments.
At the same time, it is also true that Clinton is the candidate who benefits most when polls push basically undecided leaners to make a decision. I first pointed this out nearly three months ago, and the recent YouGov poll that was released on MyDD demonstrated that thesis quite nicely. This means that she has the highest percentage of "soft" supporters of any other candidate. This is further emphasized when one considers that Obama performs better, relative to Clinton, among voters whoa are more engaged in the campaign than he does, relative to Clinton, among voters who are less engaged (source).
So, what does this all mean? How can Hillary Clinton have both the highest percentage of "hard" supporters who are unlikely to change their minds, and "soft" supporters who are basically undecided? It may seem like a contradiction, but I assure you that it is not. The key is to understand that there is more than a simple binary of "hard / soft" support, and instead a continuum of "hard" and "soft" support. Right now, voters fit into many different points along the continuum. It seems simply that Clinton's supporters tend to cluster near both extremes of that continuum--thus giving her both the hardest and softest supporters--and that supporters of other candidates tend to cluster more toward the center. In other words, Clinton seems to have a relatively lower percentage of supporters who, while decidedly leaning in her direction, are still keeping an open mind about the campaign. By way of contrast, that may be the most common profile of Edwards and Clinton supporters.
Again, this actually makes sense, and might actually indicate something of an "incumbent rule" factor within Clinton's support. After fifteen years, most Democrats have probably already decided whether or not Hillary Clinton would be their first choice for the Democratic nomination. Thus, she would have a lot of supporters who right now are not seriously considering other, newer candidates. At the same time, most of her super soft supporters that only choose her when pushed are probably convinced that Clinton is not their first choice, but they simply haven't seen a better option yet. This is either because they are not engaged in the campaign, or because they simply have yet to see a better option emerge from the field. It is important to note that these "super soft" Clinton supporters could actually stay with her when it comes time to vote or caucus, if it becomes clear to them that no better option will emerge. After all, the incumbent rule is weakening of late.
So, what does this all mean for the future of the campaign? On the one hand, it means that Clinton's numbers have the most immediate potential to drop, but on the other hand it also means that her bottom level of support is much higher than it is for other candidates. In fact, relating to the latter, it is quite possible that Clinton's absolute basement of support is very close to, or even slightly above, 15% of the Democratic primary / caucus electorate. This could potentially allow her to receive delegates virtually everywhere no matter what happens in the early states. Combine this advantage with what I imagine will be significant super delegate support, and she is already pretty much guaranteed to have quite a few delegates after February 5th.
As far as other candidates go, the key clearly is to stake out multiple, positive distinctions from Clinton, and then to perform well in the early states. This won't be easy, given Clinton's shrewd and currently effective blurring strategy. To get incredibly geeky for a moment, I think a useful analogy would come from Dune. In order to win the nomination, a non-Clinton candidate needs to be something of a Democratic Kwisatz Haderach who can tap into something so deep inside the collective Democratic unconscious that he can trasmute our rank and file's version of the water of life in a way that a Bene Gesserit like Clinton simply cannot.
If you in anyway care to understand what that last sentence means, click here. If you have an even better / geekier analogy, I'd love to hear one in the comments.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 110 Comments :: Post a Comment
|